bham wrote:You oscillate between philosophical questions (2,8,9) technical questions (3,10,13) or politico-economic (4,5,13) to which I see badly the presidential ones answered.
Uh, however, it is the role of a Head of State to "know everything", isn't it? I mean to be competent as much on technical as economic as philosophical questions not? Finally that's how I see politics ... those are the ones who write the laws that govern us it seems to me ??
Uh, when you see that they don't know how many nuclear submarines there are in France! well, it's not capital but they are far from being competent on everything and it is not because they write laws and / or they govern us that they are competent. There I think you're still a little naive about it
. A competent politician is above all someone who knows how to surround himself with competent people who will do the job for him.
I see that we do not agree on the objective of the 15 questions to be asked. I think that each question should be the subject of an urgent topic to be treated, on which the interviewed candidate could engage, I gave the example with nuclear power, question a little long I grant you but delicate subject.
We could devote one question to GMOs, another to free energy, transport policy, etc., rather than gently philosophizing.For example I take your question 2:2) Why has there been (and still is) such a flippancy and inability to recognize the responsibility of man for global warming?
It is an interesting question but which does not engage a presidential candidate in an ecological action. The answer lies in the living room conversation about, roughly speaking, human nature.Question 3:3) What is the capacity of the terrestrial ecosystem to fix / absorb carbon in comparison to our emissions of fossil origin? Can we accelerate this fixation sustainably (reforestation is very limited because it is limited to the growth of the tree)?
More technical question which calls for the candidate's knowledge of GHG and ecology in general but which does not commit him to his action.Question 4:4) In constant 2004 dollars, the sale of crude oil brought in more than 40 billion dollars from 000 to 1920, including 2006 during the last 30 years. This figure only takes into account the sale of crude oil (and therefore in no way the creation of wealth that has allowed the exploitation of this crude oil). Aren't the 000 billion $ of the Stern report published at the beginning of the last school year ridiculous in comparison? .....
If I were a candidate, I would answer you yes, certainly you are right but where are you going?
Occasionally, when I have a little more time, I would allow myself to comment on each of your questions
bham wrote: Do these interests not slow down the development of other sectors, other research? The state is the prime contractor, don't you think, as a presidential candidate, that the state must initiate and encourage research in the field of free energy, at the risk of seeing the traditional nuclear industry die out? .
Uh I do not know if the term "free energy" (if reversed) is judicious ... Are we satisfied with renewable energies? There is already so much to do ...?
Ben and the Z-machine then? watch out there is someone who will get angry.
bham wrote:This is an example of what I would see as a question.
Ah was that ONE question? Here it reminds me of a Coluche sketch: "The question is so long that when you get to the end you don't remember the beginning" (or something like that ...)
I grant you, it is a bit long and could be split into 2, a nuclear theme and a free energy theme but the 2 are linked, themes that I did not see in your questions and which seems to me yet essential.